|Page tools: Print Page Print All RSS Search this Product|
20 The classifications provide a framework for organising criminal court information for statistical purposes, enabling data to be compiled on a consistent basis across states and territories. The classifications have a hierarchical structure and therefore allow for different levels of detail to be recorded depending on the level of detail available in the source information. Associated with each classification are coding rules which ensure that the counting of information is consistent across states and territories.
Australian and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification (ANZSOC)
21 The offence categories used for national Criminal Courts statistics in this publication are classified to the Australian and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification (ANZSOC) (cat. no. 1234.0). ANZSOC provides a national framework for classifying offences for statistical purposes. The first release of this classification was Australian Standard Offence Classification 1997 (cat. no. 1234.0) (ASOC97). In 2008 the ABS released the second edition of the Australian Standard Offence Classification (ASOC08), which reflected changes that had occurred in criminal legislation since the first edition was released, as well as satisfying emerging user requirements for offence data. The ASOC was renamed ANZSOC in July 2011 to reflect its adoption in New Zealand. ANZSOC contains the same offence details and classification as ASOC and therefore there are no impacts on the offence data in this publication. Information about the effects of changing ASOC97 to ASOC08 is presented in the Technical Note in the 2008-09 issue of Criminal Courts, Australia.
National Offence Index (NOI)
22 The National Offence Index (NOI) is a ranking of all ANZSOC Groups and supplementary ANZSOC codes (ANZSOC Divisions and/or ANZSOC Subdivisions). This ranking is based on the concept of 'offence seriousness', with a ranking of 1 relating to the ANZSOC code containing the most serious offence.
23 The NOI was revised in 2009 to accommodate the changes made in ASOC08, and supersedes the first version of NOI which was released in 2002. Offence information for 2010-11 are based on the 2009 edition of the NOI in this publication.
24 The assumptions and rules underpinning the NOI, in particular defining 'offence seriousness' and the impact of this definition on the ranking of offences, need to be considered when using the principal offence data in this publication. However, it is important to note that these technical issues are only of practical significance where a choice must be made between output categories. For example, although some sexual assault and related offences are ranked ahead of illicit drug and related offences, they are unlikely to co-occur. For more information see National Offence Index, 2009 (cat. no. 1234.0.55.001).
Method of Finalisation
25 This classification categorises how a defendant has been finalised by a court. Main categories include adjudications, non-adjudications and transfers. For more information see Appendix 2 and paragraphs 30-38.
26 This classification is used to assign a principal sentence to a defendant who has been proven guilty. For more information see Appendix 3 and paragraphs 45-48.
NATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS DATA DICTIONARY
27 A data dictionary is an agreed set of classifications and standards that is accepted as the authoritative reference for a particular area of statistics. The National Criminal Courts Data Dictionary, Version 1, 2005 (cat. no. 4527.0) was developed by the National Criminal Courts Statistics Unit (NCCSU) of the ABS in collaboration with key stakeholders. It is a reference document which defines national data items and outlines methods for the use of 27 data elements and concepts that underpin the ABS and Council of Australian Governments (COAG) criminal courts collections. The current version of the data dictionary relates to the Higher and Magistrates' Criminal Courts. The National Criminal Courts Data Dictionary can be accessed via the ABS website.
28 The principal counting unit for the Criminal Courts collection is a finalised defendant. A defendant is a person or organisation against whom one or more criminal charges have been laid and which are heard together as the one unit of work by a court at a particular level. It should be noted that the Criminal Courts collection does not enumerate unique persons or organisations. If a person or organisation is a defendant in a number of criminal cases dealt with and finalised separately within the courts during the reference period, this person or organisation will be counted more than once within that reference period.
29 Some courts operate programs which transfer defendants to drug and other specialist courts for finalisation. These defendants are counted as finalised by transfer in the Criminal Court level that recommended the transfer. In some cases defendants may be referred to programs where upon completion of the program the defendant returns for finalisation to the Criminal Court that requested the transfer.
Method of finalisation
30 Method of finalisation describes how a criminal charge is concluded by a criminal court level. For the purposes of the Criminal Courts collection, one method of finalisation is applied to each defendant within the Higher, Magistrates' and Children's Courts.
31 A bench warrant is no longer considered a method of finalisation for a defendant in the Higher Courts and has been excluded from counts in this publication.
32 Defendants who are referred to a Mental Health Review Tribunal (e.g. for determination of fitness for trial) are not considered to be finalised.
Transfer between Higher Court levels
33 Defendants who transfer from one Higher Court level to another Higher Court level are considered as initiated only once (in the level they first entered) and finalised only once (from the level they finally left).
Transfer between Magistrates' and Higher Court levels
34 Defendants who transfer from the Magistrates' Court level to the Higher Court level (or vice versa) are considered as initiated twice (once in each of these levels) and finalised twice (once in each level). Defendants may have some charges finalised in the Magistrates' Courts whilst other charges are committed to the Higher Courts. A defendant in this situation would be counted in the Magistrates' Courts data and the Higher Courts data.
Transfers between the Children's Courts and the Magistrates' or Higher Courts
35 Defendants who transfer between the Children's Courts and the Magistrates' or Higher Courts (or vice versa) are considered to be initiated twice (once in each court level) and finalised twice (once in each court level).
36 Where a defendant finalised in a Higher Court has multiple charges and these have different methods of finalisation, the defendant method of finalisation code is determined by the following order of precedence:
37 Where a defendant finalised in a Magistrates' Court has multiple charges and these have different methods of finalisation, the defendant method of finalisation code is determined by the following order of precedence:
38 Where a defendant finalised in a Children's Court has multiple charges and these have different methods of finalisation, the defendant method of finalisation code is determined by the following order of precedence:
Merging counting units
39 Where a person or organisation is a defendant in more than one case, and their cases are finalised on the same date, in the same court level and in the same court location, their defendant records will be merged and counted as a single defendant record. This merging rule is used for defendants finalised in the Higher, Magistrates' and Children's Courts.
40 Prior to 2007-08, principal offence was only calculated for those defendants whose charges were adjudicated. Principal offence rules have now been extended to include defendants whose charges were non-adjudicated or transferred to another court level.
41 Where a finalised defendant has multiple charges the principal offence is determined by
42 The type of finalisation is considered in the following order:
43 Where a defendant has a single charge within the type of finalisation (e.g. charges proven, charges not proven, transfer of charges etc.), the principal offence is the relevant ANZSOC code (refer to paragraph 21) associated with that charge.
44 Where a defendant has multiple charges, each with the same type of finalisation, for example, the defendant has been found guilty of all charges, the NOI is used to determine the principal offence. The principal offence is determined as the charge with the highest ranked ANZSOC Group in the NOI. Where the defendant has an offence that is unable to be determined via the NOI (due to missing offence information or the offence is mapped to an ANZSOC code that is not included in the NOI), and this offence cannot be determined as more or less serious than another offence within the same type of finalisation, the principal offence is coded to 'not able to be determined'. For more information about the NOI refer to paragraphs 22-24.
45 Defendants who are proven guilty have sentence information reported against them at the defendant level. This is usually, though not necessarily, the sentence associated with the principal offence. A defendant can receive:
46 Where a defendant has multiple sentences, the principal sentence is selected by applying the hierarchy of the Sentence Type Classification (refer to Appendix 3).
47 It should be noted that not all sentence types are available to magistrates and judges in all jurisdictions. For example, in the Higher Courts, all states and territories with the exception of Western Australia have provision for the use of partially suspended imprisonment sentences. Whether a sentencing option is available in a particular state/territory and court level should be considered when making comparisons.
48 Defendants with a method of finalisation of 'not guilty by reason of mental illness/condition' (an acquitted outcome) may have a specific kind of sentence or order imposed on them by the court. However, these sentences are not within the scope of the Criminal Courts as the definition of principal sentence, for the purpose of this collection, is that it only applies to defendants with a method of finalisation of proven guilty.
ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER DEFENDANTS
49 This publication presents data on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander defendants for each court level in New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory and for the Magistrates' and Children's Courts in South Australia. The NCCSU has determined that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data for defendants for other jurisdictions are not of sufficient quality for national reporting in 2011-12. Further work is underway to improve the quality of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data for Criminal Courts defendants.
50 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status is based on self-identification by the individual who comes into contact with police. The quality of the data is dependent on police asking individuals to self-identify and responses being recorded on police systems. Further, this information then needs to be transferred from police systems to the courts when the defendant is initiated in the courts.
51 The majority of defendants with a traffic offence as their principal offence have an unknown Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status recorded. This is because most traffic offences are related to fines issued by road traffic authorities where it is usually not possible to ask an individual their Indigenous status. These defendants have a large impact on the proportion of unknowns in the data, therefore they have been removed from Criminal Courts statistics relating to Indigenous status. This is to enable a focus on those defendants that are more likely to have been in contact with police and therefore would be more likely to have had their Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status recorded.
52 Other offence categories that may be actioned by prosecuting agencies other than police that may also be affected by this issue are: public order, offences against justice, and miscellaneous offences. This should be taken into account when comparing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous data for these offence categories.
53 Caution should be exercised when comparing 2006-07 Children's Courts data to earlier years as data produced prior to this period was deemed experimental and may not be strictly comparable.
54 The Criminal Courts collection has been designed to facilitate comparisons over time and across states and territories through the application of common national statistical standards. However, some legislative and processing differences may limit the degree to which the statistics are comparable across the states and territories. Differences may also arise as a result of other factors, including refinements in data quality procedures and modifications in the systems used to obtain and compile the figures. Refer to paragraphs 63–106 for specific state and territory issues.
COMPARISONS TO OTHER ABS DATA
Recorded Crime - Offenders
55 Data relating to the number of court initiated police proceedings sourced from the Recorded Crime - Offenders collection are not strictly comparable to the number of defendants in the Criminal Courts collection. Not all court related actions initiated by police will proceed to a criminal court as police proceedings may be withdrawn or changed to other legal actions by police during the course of an investigation. Furthermore, a defendant appearing in a criminal court may be prosecuted via charges initiated by authorities other than police. There will also be lags between when the police initiate action via a court method of proceeding and when a criminal court finalises a defendant's case. For more information about offenders recorded by police, refer to Recorded Crime - Offenders, Australia (cat. no. 4519.0).
COMPARISONS TO NON-ABS SOURCES
56 Due to differing scope and counting rules the data in this publication may not be comparable to data published in other national and state/territory publications.
Report on Government Services
57 The Report on Government Services (RoGS), commissioned by COAG, was established to provide information on the performance of Australian and state and territory government services. The Report publishes data annually on the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the courts, sourcing data from court authorities and departments on a financial year basis.
58 The focus of the Courts chapter in the RoGS is on the administration of the courts, including workload indicators and financial information, not on judicial decisions made in the courts. In contrast, the ABS Criminal Courts collection has a social theme, painting a picture of the characteristics of finalised defendants, including information on the offences and sentence types associated with those defendants. Whilst the classifications and standards for both collections are the same, some of the counting rules are different which result in different counts of the population.
59 For both collections a finalised defendant is defined as follows: 'A person or organisation for whom all charges relating to the one case have been formally completed so that the defendant ceases to be an active item of work to be dealt with by the courts'. However, the number of defendants will vary between the ABS and RoGS collections as in the ABS collection data are further aggregated to create a 'merged finalised defendant'. The rule used in the ABS collection is: if a defendant has more than one case, which is finalised on the same date in the same court level and in the same court location, their defendant records will be merged and counted as a single defendant record. The RoGS counts both lodgments and finalisations and defines a defendant as: one defendant with one or more charges and with all charges having the same date of registration. This can result in a lower count of defendants finalised in the ABS collection than in the RoGS collection.
Transfers between intermediate and supreme court levels
60 Further differences exist as a result of different counting rules for the transfer of defendants for some court levels. The RoGS counts defendants who transfer between Higher Court levels (e.g. from an Intermediate Court to a Supreme Court), as finalised in both the court level they left (as they cease to be an active unit of work for that court level) and finalised in the new court level they entered once all charges are dealt with at that court level. For the purposes of the ABS Criminal Courts collection, defendants who transfer from one Higher Court level to another will be considered as finalised only once (from the level they finally left). As a result, the combined Intermediate and Supreme court finalisations data in the RoGS will be higher than the ABS Higher Courts data.
Duration and backlog
61 The ABS Criminal Courts collection calculates duration for a defendant as the time taken in days from the date of initiation to the date of finalisation of the defendant's case as follows:
i.e. Duration = Date of Finalisation - Date of Initiation + 1.
62 The RoGS does not report on the duration of matters which enter the courts (i.e. number of days from lodgment to finalisation). Since 2004, the RoGS has reported the backlog in a court’s workload, measured as a percentage of the pending caseload at 30 June which is older than nominated time standards. The formula used is as follows:
No. of pending cases at 30 June older than applicable reporting standard x 100 / Total pending caseload at 30 June.
STATE/TERRITORY EVENTS / SPECIFIC ISSUES
63 The following information highlights events or processes unique to a state/territory that may have an impact on the data for this collection. This may include information on recording practices and changes to legislation supplied by each state/territory.
New South Wales
64 The Crimes Amendment (Intensive Corrections Orders) Act 2010 came into effect on 1 October 2010. At the same time, Periodic Detentions ceased to be a sentencing option in the New South Wales Criminal Courts, with Intensive Corrections Orders effectively being the replacement for Periodic Detentions. This change has contributed to a decrease in ‘custody in a correctional institution’ counts and an increase in ‘custody in the community’ for 2010–11 for the Magistrates' Courts and Higher Courts data.
65 Justicelink, a new system for data collection in the New South Wales courts, was introduced for the Higher Courts in 2008 and the Magistrates' and Children's Courts between August and December 2009. Justicelink is an integrated, multi-jurisdictional case management system.
66 Prior to Justicelink the data for the Magistrates' and Children's Courts were sourced from a number of separate systems and it was not possible to consolidate the information for a defendant according to the ABS Criminal Courts collection counting unit of a finalised defendant. The data were based on finalised appearances, that is, where charges were finalised at different court appearances in the same case for a defendant, these were counted as finalised defendants at each appearance rather than being aggregated as a single finalised defendant at the latest charge finalisation date. This counting method resulted in slightly higher population counts than if the finalised defendant was counted. From August 2009, the data conforms to the national counting unit of the finalised defendant.
67 Some Higher Courts data may have been lost in the migration to the new system; therefore Higher Courts counts may be understated for the 2007-08 financial year. Caution should be used when making comparisons of small data movements between 2007-08 and other years.
68 New South Wales legislation does not contain discrete offences of stalking, intimidation and harassment. As these offences cannot be disaggregated defendants charged with stalking, intimidation and harassment have been coded to ANZSOC offence category 0291 (Stalking). From 2008-09 this group may therefore be overstated and 0531 (Harassment and private nuisance) and 0532 (Threatening behaviour) may be understated.
69 A number of offences, previously handled by the Licensing Court, have been heard in the Magistrates' Courts since July 2008. These include liquor and tobacco offences and betting and gambling offences and has resulted in an increase in the number of defendants for these offences from 2008-09 onwards.
70 Prior to 2006-07, defendants discharged under the Mental Health (Criminal Procedure) Act 1990 were included in the non-adjudicated population as 'unfit to plead' in the Magistrates' Courts. Defendants with this method of finalisation are now correctly appearing as acquitted 'by reason of mental illness/condition' from 2006-07. Therefore, the number of acquittals prior to 2006-07 were undercounted and the number of other non-adjudicated finalisations were overstated in the Magistrates' Courts.
71 In 2009 the Victorian Government introduced new measures that resulted in a number of drunkenness and public order offences being enforced by infringement notices, instead of appearing in open court. Since their introduction, more than 6,300 on-the-spot penalties for drunkenness and disorderly behaviour have been issued. These measures impacted on the 2010-11 data for the Magistrates' and Children's Courts, including a reduction in total finalised defendants and reductions in ANZSOC Division 13 (Public order offences).
72 Due to delays in the implementation of ANZSOC during 2008-09, some data for that collection cycle was based on ASOC97. Data movements in principal offence from 2008–09 to 2009–10 may be related to improvements in coding, with 2009-10 being the first complete year of data based on ANZSOC.
73 A three year trial expansion of the infringements system, commenced on 1 July 2008. This expansion allows police to issue an infringement notice for certain offences instead of charging an accused to appear at court on summons or bail. This has led to a decrease in the number of offences being dealt with in the Magistrates' and Children's Courts in 2009-10 and 2010-11.
74 For the first time in 2006-07, data on principal offence in the Magistrates' and Children's Courts of Victoria were provided based on the national counting rules. Prior to this, principal offence has been calculated using the main charge at initiation, rather than at finalisation. While the differences are expected to be minimal, some caution should be used in making comparisons of small data movements between 2005-06 and 2006-07.
75 Prior to 2008-09, deception and related offences included fare evasions processed through the Children's Courts. Victoria processed a large number of backlogs of fare evasions through the Children's Court during 2006-07, resulting in a higher number of defendants finalised. Approximately 5,900 defendants finalised had a principal offence of fare evasion in 2006-07. From December 2008 most fare evasions have been dealt with in a new Children and Young Persons Infringement Notice System (CAYPINS) rather than through the Children's Courts.
76 In February 2011, criminal infringement notices were implemented by police for some public order and traffic offences, including urinating in a public place and consumption of alcohol in a public place. These on-the-spot fines aim to deter street and traffic offences by way of an immediate consequence to the offender. This has resulted in a decrease in the overall defendant population in Queensland and decreases in ANZSOC Division 13 (Public order offences) and Division 14 (Traffic and vehicle regulatory offences) for 2010-11.
77 During 2009-10 a change was made to the recording of detention/conditional release orders in the Children's Courts database to ensure that these order types were correctly recorded as fully suspended sentences rather than partially suspended sentences. This change resulted in an increase in fully suspended sentences in this court level for 2009-10.
78 From 2006-07, there had been a large increase in the number of vehicle registration and roadworthiness offences finalised in the Magistrates' Courts. Various initiatives resulting out of the 2006 Premier's Road Safety Summit had impacted on the number of traffic and motor vehicle offences, which included a vehicle impoundment trial in some areas of the state in July 2007 by police. Many driving offences which were previously dealt with by the issuing of a traffic offence notice were dealt with through the Magistrates' Courts. This trial was extended state-wide on 1 July 2008 and is now a permanent policing arrangement.
79 An undercount of finalised defendants was identified in the 2005-06 and 2006-07 Queensland data for all court levels. Data was revised for the 2006-07 reference period (increasing Queensland's finalised defendant counts by 2% in the Higher Courts, 2% in the Magistrates' Courts and 8% in the Children's Courts). Data was unable to be revised for 2005-06 therefore caution should be used when making comparisons to prior years.
80 From July 2009, registration offences (ANZSOC code 1421) were able to be dealt with by way of infringement notice rather than by a summons to appear in court. This has led to a decrease in the number of these offences being dealt with in the Magistrates' and Children's Courts in 2009-10 and 2010-11.
81 For 2008-09, a change to coding practices for method of finalisation has resulted in a reduction in the number of defendants found guilty ex-parte. Caution should be exercised in making comparisons with earlier years.
82 For 2008-09, probation orders were introduced as a sentence for the first time. These had previously been recorded as good behaviour bond/recognisance orders/obligations, where supervision is required. Where no supervision is required, the sentence continues to be recorded as good behaviour bond/recognisance orders/obligation.
83 Due to changes made to local business processes during 2008-09, quality improvements were made in the mapping of local codes to national offence categories. Most notably, these changes have contributed to an increase in ANZSOC Division 7 (Unlawful entry with intent) and a subsequent decrease in Division 13 (Public order offences).
84 In the Children's Courts, data was revised for 2006-07. These data were originally understated due to the omission of approximately 400 records relating to defendants transferred to family conferences, which are in scope of this collection. The revisions impacted on the counts of defendants transferred to other court levels and the total defendants finalised for this state.
85 Caution should be exercised when comparing finer custodial order counts prior to 2007-08 as some of these counts have been miscoded between categories. For 2006-07, custody in the community are understated, while fully suspended sentence counts are overstated. This is due to the partial miscoding of intensive corrections orders as fully suspended sentences, rather than custody in the community. Intensive corrections orders were all incorrectly coded to fully suspended sentences prior to 2006-07, resulting in an overcount of this offence type and no data for custody in the community.
86 For 2008-09, a change to coding practices for sexual assault offences was made in conjunction with the implementation of ANZSOC. These mapping changes were made to the Higher Courts data but were not made to the Magistrates' or Children's Courts data for 2008-09. Caution should be exercised in making comparisons between Higher Courts data and Magistrates' and Children's Courts data in 2008-09.
87 As a result of the implementation of ANZSOC, inaccuracies were discovered in the mapping of local offence codes for stalking in ASOC97. This error was unable to be rectified in the 2009-10 publication and therefore may have caused an undercount in ANZSOC Division 2 and an overcount in ANZSOC Division 16 in all court levels for 2008-09.
88 From 2008-09, a change to coding practices for local codes relating to driving under the influence was made in conjunction with the implementation of ANZSOC. These mapping changes has resulted in a notable movement of defendants from Division 4 to Division 14.
89 Prior to 2008-09, Western Australia had a higher than average proportion of defendants with a principal offence in Division 4 (Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons) and a relatively low proportion in Division 14 (Traffic and vehicle regulatory offences). This can be largely attributed to a miscoding of several local offences relating to exceeding the prescribed content of alcohol limit to ASOC Division 4 (specifically, ASOC Group 0411 Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs), rather than ASOC Division 14 (specifically group 1431 Exceeding the prescribed content of alcohol limit). Other states/territories generally concord their drink driving offences to ASOC Group 1431, and therefore historical comparisons of this data for Western Australia and with other states and territories should be made with caution.
90 Data for aggravated sexual assault and non-aggravated sexual offences are understated and overstated respectively for 2006-07 and 2007-08 due to errors in the application of codes for these offence types. Data for these detailed offence categories in 2006-07 and 2007-08 should not be compared with previous years. The total sexual assault and related offences ASOC division has not been impacted.
91 Data relating to custody in the community were incorrectly coded in 2005-06, resulting in an overcount for this sentence type. All of these data should have been coded to community supervision or work orders as they comprised probation orders. Some probation orders may have also been coded to fully suspended sentences for these same years, resulting in a potential overcount for this sentence type.
92 The jurisdiction of the Children's Court in Western Australia allows magistrates to hear all offences, whether indictable or summary, and to apply both adult and juvenile penalties.
93 From 2010-11, there has been a change in the way defendants are counted as being finalised in the ‘Children’s/Youth Court’ in Tasmania. In Tasmania a ‘youth’ is a person who is 10 or more years old but less than 18 years old at the time when the offence the person has committed, or is suspected of having committed, occurred (Youth Justice Act 1997). The Act includes specific provisions for a youth who is charged jointly with an adult or charged with a prescribed offence (which includes some traffic offences). These provisions are complex and may involve the youth being dealt with by another court but sentenced under the Youth Justice Act. In the past, many of these youth defendants have been included in the counts for the Magistrates’ Courts, however they have been included in the Children’s Courts counts from 2010-11 onwards.
94 In February 2008 changes were made to the process for dealing with defendants charged with indictable offences. This change in criminal procedure has resulted in an increase in the number of defendants committed for trial to the Higher Courts.
95 In April 2008, the Monetary Penalties Enforcement Act 2005 came into effect. Under this Act, a person issued with an infringement notice who did nothing about the infringement was deemed to have been convicted of the offence without going to court. This legislation resulted in a significant decrease in the number of defendants appearing in the Tasmanian Magistrates' Courts in 2008-09.
96 For 2011-12, a joint project between courts and police to clear up historic outstanding warrants and summons matters resulted in an extraordinary number of finalisations. Many of these cases were withdrawn. The age of these historic cases also impacted duration. Caution should be used when making historical comparisons.
97 For 2011-12, there has been a change in practice in the Magistrates' Courts, resulting in an increase in guilty ex-parte finalisations. In 2012 Magistrates started to hear minor matters ex-parte (instead of issuing bench warrants) if the defendant did not appear for the court hearing. Caution should be used when making historical comparisons.
98 Prior to August 2010, most traffic matters were dealt with ex-parte (i.e. without the defendant being present at the hearing) before Justice of the Peace Courts. These matters are now dealt with by Magistrates. This has resulted in a significant decrease in guilty ex-parte counts for the 2010-11 Magistrates' Courts data. Caution should be used when making historical comparisons.
99 Prior to 2009-10, there was an error in the mapping for charges acquitted and withdrawn resulting in an overcount for acquittals and an undercount for charges withdrawn. This was rectified for the 2009-10 data. Caution should be exercised when making historical comparisons.
100 Prior to 2008-09 fully suspended sentences were based on a flag which determined if the defendant was 'released forthwith' and did not consider whether the defendant had actually served time in custody. Consequently fully suspended sentences are overcounted and custody in a correctional institution are undercounted prior to this period. Caution should be exercised when making historical comparisons.
101 The introduction of the Youth Justice Court (Youth Justice Act) 2007 allows for referral of a youth to diversion or youth justice conferencing which may impact on the time taken for defendants to be dealt with by the Children's Courts. This Act also allows for pre-sentencing conferences which may impact on the time taken for defendants to be dealt with.
Australian Capital Territory
102 The Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977 was amended in May 2011. An associated coding change has moved some offence data from Division 14 to Division 4 for 2011-12. Caution should be taken when making comparisons with previous years.
103 In 2010-11, three acting judges were appointed to assist with the backlog of cases in the Supreme Court, which resulted in a notable increased in cases finalised over the year.
104 In 2007-08, defendants sentenced to a good behaviour bond/recognisance order were incorrectly coded to a fully suspended sentence. This was rectified for the 2008-09 publication. Caution should be exercised when making comparisons between 2007-08 and 2008-09.
105 For 2007-08, some road traffic offences in the Magistrates' and Children's Courts were incorrectly concorded to ASOC code 0411 (Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs) instead of ASOC code 1431 (Exceeding the prescribed content of alcohol limit). Based on historical proportions for these principal offences we estimate that over 500 defendants in the Magistrates' Courts and over 30 defendants in the Children's Courts have been miscoded. The data provider has advised that coding for this offence was incorrect for 2007-08 data only. Comparisons of 2007-08 data with other time periods therefore should not be made.
106 From 2007-08, community service orders imposed with a fully suspended sentence are now coded correctly to 'intensive corrections orders'; in previous years this sentence type was coded to 'fully suspended sentence'. This sentence type relates to defendants charged with federal offences.
CONFIDENTIALITY OF TABULAR DATA
107 Table cells containing small values have been randomly adjusted to avoid releasing confidential information. Due to this randomisation process, totals may vary slightly across tables.
108 ABS publications which may be of interest include:
109 Current publications and other products released by the ABS are listed on the ABS website. The ABS also issues a daily Release Advice on the website which details products to be released in the week ahead. The National Centre for Crime and Justice Statistics (NCCJS) releases a newsletter titled Crime and Justice News (cat. no. 4500.0) that is published on the ABS website, and emailed to subscribers of the NCCJS electronic mailing list. The NCCJS can be contacted by email through <email@example.com>.
110 Non-ABS sources of criminal court statistics which may be of interest include:
These documents will be presented in a new window.